These proposals are just suggesting increasing the maximum limits to give judges more latitude for the more egregious offences, hardly seems controversial - note that unlike the US, speeding fines aren't a funding method for local government, so they aren't really abused as a revenue scheme.

scanman61:Daaayum....ten thousand pounds for driving with worn out tires? That's probably more than the whole car is worth!

Which is the problem with fines as penalties. Those who are well off can easily pay them. The poor can't. If they couldn't afford tires before, they sure won't be able to after paying your fine.

Of course, maybe that is the intent. If you're too poor to afford proper maintenance for your vehicle, you shouldn't be driving it. But instead of doing a roadside fine, maybe the crown can check for that annually when the owner renews the registration. Some states and provinces check out the overall condition of your vehicle when you go to get your annual emissions testing.

As for places that use proportional fines [to your income] instead of fixed penalties, all that is likely to do is ensure that every officer on traffic duty is hanging out in the nice part of town. The chief needs a new ergonomic chair to go with his mahogany desk.

Get rid of the fines and just assign people to crap like litter patrol or invasive plant removal along the roadways that suck up time instead.

Dinjiin:scanman61: Daaayum....ten thousand pounds for driving with worn out tires? That's probably more than the whole car is worth!

Which is the problem with fines as penalties. Those who are well off can easily pay them. The poor can't. If they couldn't afford tires before, they sure won't be able to after paying your fine.

Of course, maybe that is the intent. If you're too poor to afford proper maintenance for your vehicle, you shouldn't be driving it. But instead of doing a roadside fine, maybe the crown can check for that annually when the owner renews the registration. Some states and provinces check out the overall condition of your vehicle when you go to get your annual emissions testing.

As for places that use proportional fines [to your income] instead of fixed penalties, all that is likely to do is ensure that every officer on traffic duty is hanging out in the nice part of town. The chief needs a new ergonomic chair to go with his mahogany desk.

Get rid of the fines and just assign people to crap like litter patrol or invasive plant removal along the roadways that suck up time instead.

So, they should also be assigned less jail time for an equal offense because their time is worth more money and so they will require fewer days as a disincentive to commit a given crime.

Unless the argument is that rich people are bad or something, but I doubt it, since that would be a stupid generalization.

The argument is that the fines are a deterrent, and they are set such that the average person feels the impact but can still carry on. For example, if someone is making $30,000/yr, a $500 fine is significant, but not crippling, and serves as a reminder for the future. To someone making $3,000,000/yr the same fine is insignificant and they may see it simply as a trivial cost of engaging in a particular behavior. Increase the fine to $50,000 and it will have the same impact as the smaller fine did on the guy making less.

So, they should also be assigned less jail time for an equal offense because their time is worth more money and so they will require fewer days as a disincentive to commit a given crime.

Unless the argument is that rich people are bad or something, but I doubt it, since that would be a stupid generalization.

The argument is that the fines are a deterrent, and they are set such that the average person feels the impact but can still carry on. For example, if someone is making $30,000/yr, a $500 fine is significant, but not crippling, and serves as a reminder for the future. To someone making $3,000,000/yr the same fine is insignificant and they may see it simply as a trivial cost of engaging in a particular behavior. Increase the fine to $50,000 and it will have the same impact as the smaller fine did on the guy making less.

A day-fine or day fine or unit fine is a unit of payment that, above a minimum fine, is based on the offender's daily personal income. A crime is punished with incarceration for a determined number of days, or with fines. As incarceration is a financial punishment, in the effect of preventing work, a day-fine represents one day incarcerated and without salary. It is argued to be just, because if both high-income and low-income population are punished with the same jail time, they should also be punished with a proportionally similar income loss. An analogy may be drawn with personal income tax, which is also proportional to income, even progressively.

xria:These proposals are just suggesting increasing the maximum limits to give judges more latitude for the more egregious offences, hardly seems controversial - note that unlike the US, speeding fines aren't a funding method for local government, so they aren't really abused as a revenue scheme.

VA came out with some horseshiat that was a $3000 dollar civil fine. But only for VA residents. And since it was civil rather than criminal, guess who the burden of proof was on. I don't think it lasted very long.

Slow down, really. Driving like a maniac, behind the wheel of a deadly weapon... you SHOULD be fined stupid amounts for breaking the law.

I WISH they pulled people over for speeding more. And also the license re-testing. And the having a different license for a "smart car" than a "muscle car". AND the retesting. Also, the retesting. It's way too easy to kill someone drive a car in the US. The farking society has become dependant on single occupancy driving. It's pretty much one of the few, if not the only, country in the world like this. FFS they don't even have sidewalks in Atalanta. Meanwhile, in Scotland even the tiniest crap road has a well-worn footpath next to it.

Level 4: Maximum fine increases from £2,500 to £10,000 for offences including speeding on the motorway

Sure, increase fines for speeding on the safest roads where speeding has the least consequences, but where the greatest number of people are likely to speed (most people, no matter what artificial speed limit is set by authorities, will drive at a speed that is safe and prudent for the circumstances. If most people speed, the speed limit is too low). Then convince the masses that it is all for their safety and not at all for generating revenue. All you need are a couple of high profile cases that play well on the news and people will accept this as fact.

Oh noes, they're putting up the maximum fine a court can impose for speeding!!

Basically, in the UK, if a speeding ticket makes it as far as court then it's only for one of the following reasons.

1) you pled not-guilty to the speeding ticket and therefore it goes to court (you'd have to have a damn good reason to do this usually)2) you gave the policeman who pulled you over a massive amount of lip and he decided not to deal with it at the roadside.3) You were going so far over the limit you've made a mockery of the law.

If you get caught by a speed camera you get sent a £75 fine in the post (unless #3 applies), which drops to £50 if you pay within 21 daysIf you get pulled over they generally give you the choice of dealing with it at the roadside (again, £75 dropping to £50 for early payment) unless #2 or #3 applies (it's a post in fine, you don't give to the policemen)

Considering I got pulled over doing 120-something on the motorway (70mph limit) and got given a side of the road fine, it takes a LOT to get to court.

THIS. Speeding fines should be proportionate to income. The way it works now, rich farkers can go 120 in their Mercs and Porsches, and pay the fine without blinking. Meanwhile, some working stiff gets caught going 82 in a 65, and he winds up losing the Chevy to pay the fine.